George Zimmerman's bloody head

[taichiliberal]

1. We don't know if Zimmerman flashed his gun.

Stop thinking your ignorance means something. Several lines of evidence of evidence is against Zimmerman flashing his gun.

2. Obviously Zimmerman was not helpless as Zimmerman is alive and Martin is dead.

You are so incredibly f-ing stupid. A sustained one-sided fist fight is not any kind of defense against a gun.



The timeline shows that Trayvon could have been far away if he hadn't chosen to confront Zimmerman. And, I haven't heard anything about the ho saying she heard Trayvon tell someone to get off of him. So, I'm certain that is just a figment of your shitty imagination.

Zimmerman: He was frustrated that the burglaries had not been solved to his satisfaction.

You have a perfect record of perfect stupidity. Zimmerman's frustration is not motive to attack Trayvon. Zimmerman's frustration is only motive to keep an eye on Trayvon, until police arrived.

Without all the evidence that will be presented in court, we can't know if either scenario is true or if both are false.

We know enough evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the Afro piece of shit assaulted Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman shot in self-defense. However, I understand why you don't see this, given nothing but a shit-filled skull to work with.

The core of the Prosecution's case will be to use Bullshit to attack Zimmerman's credibility with his own words, and to emphases that Zimmerman could have avoided [being brutally assaulted] by staying in his car. The jury will then quickly acquit Zimmerman.

the only thing you have to counter WorldWatcher's systematic breakdown of ALL the evidence is your persistent effort to inject your supposition and conjecture into the evidence as fact. Hint: failed ploy on your part.

But then again, an irrational and emotional meltdown is all one can expect from an Ariux who refers to a victim of a homicide as an "Afro piece of shit".....once again, your sheet is slipping out from under your shirt there, bunky.

Oh, and FYI

Trayvon's killer said to make self-incriminating statements - Yahoo! News

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ahhh, the Zimmerman Zombie reveals his true nature. Martin is a "punk" because he was walking home IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE LIVES WITH HIS DAD, VISITING A NEARBY HOUSE OF HIS DAD'S GIRLFRIEND. Martin is a "punk" because some armed wanna be Neighborhood Watch clown with a history of temper related run in's with the cops and numerous FALSE ALARM calls to 911 about suspicious black guys starts tailing him at night first in a car, and then on foot. Martin is a "punk" for fighting for his life when Zimmerman confronts him. And Martin is a "punk" for being a dead man who cannot tell his side of the story, but the evidence does not bode well for Zimmerman as being wholly innocent victim.

Seems like YOU are the "punk", Toddles. And I don't have to waste anymore time reading parroted failed BS by punks. You're done.

Ahhh, the Zimmerman Zombie reveals his true nature. Martin is a "punk" because he was walking home IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE LIVES WITH HIS DAD,

No, Trayvon is a punk because instead of running home, he came back and started beating on Zimmermann. Now he's a dead punk.

Martin is a "punk" for fighting for his life when Zimmerman confronts him.

Trayvon had to fight for his life when Zimmermann asked him what he was doing?

And I don't have to waste anymore time reading parroted failed BS by punks.

Run away, maybe you'll survive.

Once again, Toddles just repeats his lies and wishful thinking as if they are fact. Pity our intellectually impotent Todd's version of reality just doesn't cut it:

Trayvon's killer said to make self-incriminating statements - Yahoo! News


No one runs from liars like you, Todd....we just expose you for the clowns you are then ignore you. Adios.

Wow.....said.....that sounds serious.

 

[idb]

So, because he didn't have a gun, he couldn't claim justifiable action under the Stand Your Ground law?
Remember that Zimmerman wasn't going to be prosecuted originally - presumably because he used a gun and not his fists.
Does it have to be a gun or are other weapons permissible?

You sound like someone who has a skull full of shit, making you unable to understand even simple things.

Afro Trayvon did not assault Zimmerman in self-defense, it makes no difference whether he had a gun or not.

Even if, suppose that one of the racist shitheads is right, and that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon. The only one getting hurt in this fight was Zimmerman. It's hard to claim self-defense in a sustained one-sided beating.

Zimmerman was stalking him with a gun and you're saying that Martin had no right to defend himself?
Not having been there - maybe Martin decided to conceal himself until Zimmerman came near and then jump him - after all only one of them was armed.

 

[Ravi]

Not really, see in Florida they have this law called "Stand Your Ground", if Zimmerman had assaulted Martin, then Martin was under no obligation to retreat and was authorized the use of force. It wouldn't matter if Martin was hurt or not, he was allowed to respond with force.


[Disclaimer: Right now we have hard evidence either way on exactly who started hostilities - just replying to the scenario presented.]

Don't be a f-ing idiot. "Use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm." Someone easily winning a fist fight loses a presumption of a fear of death or bodily harm. The only thing Trayvon had to worry about were more gashes on his knuckles. Continuing a fight against helpless Zimmerman could no longer self-defense, even if Zimmerman started the fight.

1. We don't know if Zimmerman flashed his gun.

2. Obviously Zimmerman was not helpless as Zimmerman is alive and Martin is dead.

And, your Disclaimer is also stupid. The timeline proves that Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman. Even the unreliable and hostile witness, Trayvon's ho, gives an account that suggests that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman claims Trayon started the fight. Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight. Also, Zimmerman the accused gets the presumption of innocence. You are so f-ing stupid. I'm embarrassed for you.

No, the timeline proves no such thing. Actually the girlfriends statements indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin and the audio of her statement says she heard Martin calling for Zimmerman to get off him.

Looking at each perspective they both had motive. Martin: Some weird guy in a truck was following him at night in the rain. He'd already shown a willingness to run away, but the weird guy in the truck jumped out and started pursuing him. Martins motive? Self Defense, and remember under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law he had no requirement to retreat if he felt threatened. Zimmerman: He was frustrated that the burglaries had not been solved to his satisfaction. He'd previously reported another youth that got away before the police arrived. Due to frustration he was going to ensure that didn't happen again.

Without all the evidence that will be presented in court, we can't know if either scenario is true or if both are false.


One thing you did get right though, in court there is a presumption of innocence and if the prosecution fails to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman should be found not guilty.


>>>>

Does it matter if Zimmerman flashed his gun or not? I say no, because IMO it was reasonable for Martin to feel threatened by a stranger, a stranger that appears more muscular, following him with or without the gun. But yes, flashing the gun would be icing on the cake and no one could doubt that in that case Martin had every right to fear for his life.

If Zimmerman is to claim self-defense doesn't he have to prove it WAS self-defense? Testimony and evidence so far makes that proof doubtful.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Zimmerman was attacked by a dope-smoking thug who got what he had comming.

You are either a liar or just stupid as shit.

No it doesn't. Nothing that you've provided there supports your claim. Your source also affirms what I said about the comparative size of the two. Martin was taller, but Zimmerman was bigger.

Who the fuck said that Zimemrman was on the verge of unconsciousness?

Zimmerman did, you idiot, and so has his brother.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Even by your debased "standards," that was moronic.

Actually, I wasn't applying my standards, I was applying your own. I'll agree, it's moronic.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Does it matter if Zimmerman flashed his gun or not? I say no, because IMO it was reasonable for Martin to feel threatened by a stranger, a stranger that appears more muscular, following him with or without the gun. But yes, flashing the gun would be icing on the cake and no one could doubt that in that case Martin had every right to fear for his life.

If Zimmerman is to claim self-defense doesn't he have to prove it WAS self-defense? Testimony and evidence so far makes that proof doubtful.

Actually, it does matter. Florida statute explicitly preempts a right to use deadly force when the person using such force first brandished his weapon before hand. If Zimmerman flashed his pistol, hoping to scare Martin, and if that lead to Martin "throwing the first punch," the law places guilt upon Zimmerman, and grants the right of self defense upon Martin.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. We don't know if Zimmerman flashed his gun.

Stop thinking your ignorance means something. Several lines of evidence of evidence is against Zimmerman flashing his gun.

The jury will make their decision based on logic and evidence not internet chest thumping and personal insults.

So show us the evidence against Zimmerman flashing his gun - the forensics? The witness statements? Evidence, not something Zimmerman may or may not have said.

2. Obviously Zimmerman was not helpless as Zimmerman is alive and Martin is dead.

You are so incredibly f-ing stupid. A sustained one-sided fist fight is not any kind of defense against a gun.

The jury will make their decision based on logic and evidence not internet chest thumping and personal insults.

Of course it isn't, which is why Zimmerman wasn't helpless.

No, the timeline proves no such thing. Actually the girlfriends statements indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin and the audio of her statement says she heard Martin calling for Zimmerman to get off him.

The timeline shows that Trayvon could have been far away if he hadn't chosen to confront Zimmerman. And, I haven't heard anything about the ho saying she heard Trayvon tell someone to get off of him. So, I'm certain that is just a figment of your shitty imagination.

The jury will make their decision based on logic and evidence not internet chest thumping and personal insults.

"Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, talking to him on the telephone, heard the teenager saying "get off, get off," in the moments before his cell phone cut off and he was shot dead, according to a recording released Friday of the girl's interview with a prosecutor." More details emerge in Trayvon Martin investigation - CNN​

You shouldn't be certain, I have history of being able to backup the things I say.

Zimmerman: He was frustrated that the burglaries had not been solved to his satisfaction.

You have a perfect record of perfect stupidity. Zimmerman's frustration is not motive to attack Trayvon. Zimmerman's frustration is only motive to keep an eye on Trayvon, until police arrived.

The jury will make their decision based on logic and evidence not internet chest thumping and personal insults.

Yes it would be a motive, and one indicated during the dispatcher call when Zimmerman commented that "these assholes always get away" if Zimmerman acted on that frustration and attempted to unlawfully retrain and detain Martin. Frucstration, agitation, and mood swings which are possible from the prescriptions for Adderall and Temazepam that Zimmerman had.

Without all the evidence that will be presented in court, we can't know if either scenario is true or if both are false.

We know enough evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the Afro piece of shit assaulted Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman shot in self-defense. However, I understand why you don't see this, given nothing but a shit-filled skull to work with.

Sorry, prejudice is not evidence.

The good news is that the jury will consist of people that will use logic and reason in examining the case and not people that refer to Martin as an "Afro piece of shit".

The core of the Prosecution's case will be to use Bullshit to attack Zimmerman's credibility with his own words, and to emphases that Zimmerman could have avoided [being brutally assaulted] by staying in his car. The jury will then quickly acquit Zimmerman.

I don't predict what the jury will do, don't now - haven't seen all the evidence or the expert (from the defense and the prosecution) as to how the evidence could be applied.

I find it hilarious though that you fear Zimmerman's credibility will be undermined by his own words. Ohhhh the horrors of pointing out that he told different stories at different times (if that is what he did) and where his story(ies) are inconsistent with the physical evidence (such as autopsy examination, photographs of Zimmerman himself, and forensic DNA/GSR evidence).



>>>>

 

[JimBowie1958]

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Zimmerman was attacked by a dope-smoking thug who got what he had comming.

You are either a liar or just stupid as shit.

No it doesn't. Nothing that you've provided there supports your claim. Your source also affirms what I said about the comparative size of the two. Martin was taller, but Zimmerman was bigger.

Zimmerman was fatter. Martin was in much better condition than GZ.

Who the fuck said that Zimemrman was on the verge of unconsciousness?

Zimmerman did, you idiot, and so has his brother.

He was not about to black out at the time he was yelling for help, but at the time he shot.

Again, it would seem you are BOTH, stupid and a liar.

 

[Liability]

Even by your debased "standards," that was moronic.

Actually, I wasn't applying my standards, I was applying your own. I'll agree, it's moronic.

And now you are just lying to complete your backpeddle.

Everyone saw what you posted and it was indeed YOUR notion of standards. You are a moron and you are a cowardly liar.

You -- and the dumb ass things you post -- are worthless.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So show us the evidence against Zimmerman flashing his gun - the forensics? The witness statements? Evidence, not something Zimmerman may or may not have said.

The best evidence that GZ did not flash his gun was the fact that Martin attacked him. Had he known GZ had a gun it is extremely unlikely that a thug like him would have attacked.

Of course it isn't, which is why Zimmerman wasn't helpless.

To Martins knowledge GZ was apparently helpless which is why the POS was not letting GZ 'tap out'. He thought he had a helpless victim whom he could beat as much as he pleased.

"Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, talking to him on the telephone, heard the teenager saying "get off, get off," in the moments before his cell phone cut off and he was shot dead, according to a recording released Friday of the girl's interview with a prosecutor." More details emerge in Trayvon Martin investigation - CNN​

Yeah, like MArtins girlfriend has no bias or motive to lie about her account. Eye witnesses say GZ was taken down by MArtin, not the opposite.

Yes it would be a motive, and one indicated during the dispatcher call when Zimmerman commented that "these assholes always get away" if Zimmerman acted on that frustration and attempted to unlawfully retrain and detain Martin. Frucstration, agitation, and mood swings which are possible from the prescriptions for Adderall and Temazepam that Zimmerman had.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda dont prove jack shit.

I find it hilarious though that you fear Zimmerman's credibility will be undermined by his own words. Ohhhh the horrors of pointing out that he told different stories at different times (if that is what he did) and where his story(ies) are inconsistent with the physical evidence (such as autopsy examination, photographs of Zimmerman himself, and forensic DNA/GSR evidence).

Usually honest unrehearsed eye wtiness accounts have contradictions over time and between each other as each person has a different perspective and their memory of the event will change slightly over time as they remember details that alter their accounts.

This is more evidence that GZ is telling the truth and did not make a story up.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Even by your debased "standards," that was moronic.

Actually, I wasn't applying my standards, I was applying your own. I'll agree, it's moronic.

And now you are just lying to complete your backpeddle.

Everyone saw what you posted and it was indeed YOUR notion of standards. You are a moron and you are a cowardly liar.

You -- and the dumb ass things you post -- are worthless.

I think he is playing to the other dumbasses ont he thread.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So show us the evidence against Zimmerman flashing his gun - the forensics? The witness statements? Evidence, not something Zimmerman may or may not have said.

The best evidence that GZ did not flash his gun was the fact that Martin attacked him. Had he known GZ had a gun it is extremely unlikely that a thug like him would have attacked.

That's not evidence, that's opinion.

There is no independent evidence either way.

Of course it isn't, which is why Zimmerman wasn't helpless.

To Martins knowledge GZ was apparently helpless which is why the POS was not letting GZ 'tap out'. He thought he had a helpless victim whom he could beat as much as he pleased.

Couple of different possibilities...

1. Supposedly Zimmerman's story is that he and Martin struggled for the gun. You going to let someone trying to pull a gun "tap out"?

2. Lack of GSR on Zimmerman's cloths and the bullet path would be indicative of a shot not being fired when Zimmerman was underneath Martin. It may be that Zimmerman did "tap out" either by pushing Martin away or by Martin moving away on his own.

Yeah, like MArtins girlfriend has no bias or motive to lie about her account.

So for consistancy, I'm sure you will discount Zimmerman's account because he would have a bias correct?

Eye witnesses say GZ was taken down by MArtin, not the opposite.

False, no eyewitness account indicate who was taken down by whom. All eyewitness accounts begin AFTER hostilities had already started.

Yes it would be a motive, and one indicated during the dispatcher call when Zimmerman commented that "these assholes always get away" if Zimmerman acted on that frustration and attempted to unlawfully retrain and detain Martin. Frucstration, agitation, and mood swings which are possible from the prescriptions for Adderall and Temazepam that Zimmerman had.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda dont prove jack shit.

Funny how you now call for proof now, yet have made claims not supported by any evidence.

We are discussing possible scenarios and the question to me was what motivation did Zimmerman have - I presented one frustration with the burglaries heightened by prescription drugs. Possible? Yes. But we will not know for sure since the Sanford police failed to run a toxicology panel on Zimmerman.

I find it hilarious though that you fear Zimmerman's credibility will be undermined by his own words. Ohhhh the horrors of pointing out that he told different stories at different times (if that is what he did) and where his story(ies) are inconsistent with the physical evidence (such as autopsy examination, photographs of Zimmerman himself, and forensic DNA/GSR evidence).

Usually honest unrehearsed eye wtiness accounts have contradictions over time and between each other as each person has a different perspective and their memory of the event will change slightly over time as they remember details that alter their accounts.

This is more evidence that GZ is telling the truth and did not make a story up.

The above has nothing to do with eyewitness accounts.

It would be comparing various versions of Zimmerman's story(ies) given that night on scene, when first arriving at the police station, 5-hours later, and the next day when he supposedly did a reenactment on video at the scene for the police and then comparing it to the forensic evidence available.


>>>>

 

[Liability]

Very true, if Martin was shown to have attacked Zimmerman - then SYG isn't really an issue, it's purely a case of self defense. It may or it may not, depending on preceding actions by Martin and/or Zimmerman.



If I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong - I think you are saying that at the point Martin supposedly was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground - that self defense immunity applies.

I disagree. Florida Statute 776.041 holds that an aggressor loses self defense immunity if a fight escalates under certain circumstances. Prior to that point in time the state (is expected) to make a case that Zimmerman was the aggressor and acted in unlawful manner nullifying his self defense immunity later in time for when they were on the ground and Zimmerman shot Martin and so is legally liable because of his preceding actions for the results that occurred.

I'm not saying they can do it, I'm saying that it appears that that will be the avenue they take. Until the self defense hearing and later trial, we won't know. At that point we should see a clearer picture of all the evidence including Zimmerman's statements to the police that night and his video reenactment. Then they can be compared with the forensic and autopsy evidence to see if they either support or refute Zimmerman's story(ies).



>>>>

If Martin is on top of Zimmerman, cracking Z's noggin into the concrete, placing Z in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm, Z is entitled to defend himself. Period.

Sorry, it's not "Period".

Under Florida Law, the event's leading up to that point are a factor to be considered.

And if the "State" does wish to make the case that Z was the supposed "initial aggressor," the evidence for that position has not yet been revealed.

I agree, to a degree. No "smoking gun" evidence has been released. However some of the evidence that has been released can be used by the state to undermine Zimmerman's story. For example, the 7-11 video shows no signs of "suspicious" or "drug induced behavior". The bullet path isn't consistent with Zimmerman shoting "up" into Martin. And lack of GSR could be indicative of a greater distance between the two based on an extended arm discharge of the firearm. Then of course we haven't seen the "clubhouse video" listed on the evidence list. If from security cameras and it shows no suspicious activity by Martin, then the very basis of Zimmerman's initial call and his description of events becomes suspect (and on the other hand if it does show suspicious behavior, it adds credibility to Zimmerman's story).

But even if Z HAD been some kind of initial aggressor, his right of self defense would not necessarily terminate forever just because of that. If an initial aggressor has ceased his alleged aggression, then there would be no zero "justification" for the other person to continue to pummel him. If the pummeling nonetheless continues, guess what? The supposed "initial" aggressor can proceed to defend himself. The law of justification kind of mirrors the human instinct for survival.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​

Not the way I read it.

The opening paragraph clearly indicates that the provisions of 776.041 allow for loss of self defense immunity (the preceding paragraphs in the law).

Paragraph "(1)" says the immunity is permanently lost if the individual was in the act of a forcible felony. Aggravated Assault under Florida Law is a forcible felony and would result either by : (a) simple assault coupled with attempted unlawful detention, OR (b) assault coupled with the use of a weapon. Assault need not be physical violence, assault can be conveyed through word or intent, which is different than battery which requires a physical action.

Paragraph "(2)" notes that if the initial aggressor had an opportunity to retreat once hostilities are started and fails to do so, then they also lose self defense immunity. This is were the state could attempt to use the forensic lack of GSR on Zimmerman's jacket and/or shirt to indicate that a straight arm extension was present at the time of firing the weapon which would indicate a greater distance between the two. If Zimmerman had pushed Martin off, then pulled his gun and fired - he would have not have taken advantage of an avenue to disengage.

Paragraph "(1)" and "(2)" are joined by an "or", which means loss of the self defense immunities present in the preceding paragraphs can be lost under either paragraph.


Again though, those are scenario's which don't apply **IF** the defense were to show Martin was the initial aggressor.


>>>>

I am opposed to a wall of words. So I limit my reply to JUST the final section of your post, which I have highlighted in bold and some hideous green color.

Taken sequentially:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; . . . .

Section 1 by its own terms does not apply at all since nobody has said that Zimmerman had committed was committing or escaping after the commission of any felony. Accordingly, if he had any right to the justification defense, section one does not remove it.

Next:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
* * * *
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; * * * *

As to 2(a), that's the whole point. That's the nub of it. If it can even be shown by the government (a giant "if," at that) Zimmerman "provoked" the use of force against him, the justification defense would not be available to him UNLESS the force being used against him was so great that he reasonably believed that he was confronted with the imminent danger of death OR great bodily harm.

I exclude 2(b) since there is no evidence known to us at this point that Zimmerman "withdrew" (anymore than there's any actual proof that he was ever the initial aggressor, anyway).

2(a) seems to say that EVEN IF you are the initial aggressor, then if the force then used against you is so out of bounds as to put YOU in reasonable fear for your life or of facing imminent great bodily harm, you may STILL resort to the use of the justification defense.

That you read the statute differently than that is simply not in keeping with what the law itself actually says.

Statutory construction is not as complicated as some people seem to believe -- even though the gibberish passed by legislatures often is needlessly convoluted.

By the way, in that regard, your analysis of the statute is incorrect. Since sections 1 and 2 were written in the disjunctive [i.e., the use of the "or"], the commission of a felony (section 1) does NOT permanently deprive a person of the justification defense (as you suggest it does) under the conditions described in the statute following the "unless."

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Thanks Liabiltiy.

I've got some stuff to do and I don't want to reply from the hip and wish to give you post some serious consideration.

I will come back to it later after some thought.


WW


>>>>

 

[KissMy]

Actually, it does matter. Florida statute explicitly preempts a right to use deadly force when the person using such force first brandished his weapon before hand. If Zimmerman flashed his pistol, hoping to scare Martin, and if that lead to Martin "throwing the first punch," the law places guilt upon Zimmerman, and grants the right of self defense upon Martin.

Yeah - Attacking a man pointing a gun at you is the first thing every 17 year old does. Even the girlfriend did not hear the word GUN!

 

[Ariux]

The best evidence that GZ did not flash his gun was the fact that Martin attacked him. Had he known GZ had a gun it is extremely unlikely that a thug like him would have attacked.

That's not evidence, that's opinion.

There is no independent evidence either way.

Are their any functioning brain cells in that ball of shit in your racist skull? Being attacked is evidence that the gun wasn't flashed. Both Zimmerman and Travyon's ho didn't report a gun being flashed. That's also evidence. If the Afro shit wasn't killed, Zimmerman would be stuck explaining why he flashed a gun to tops. That's evidence he didn't do it. Add to that the burden of proof is on you to show Zimmerman flashed a gun. But, the only evidence a shithead understands is a bullet to their chest.

So for consistancy, I'm sure you will discount Zimmerman's account because he would have a bias correct?

Zimmerman talked extensively, without time to reherse and without being in a mental state to be very calculating. For you to compare Zimmerman's statements to the Travyon's ho's statement, a girl who refused to talk to police for weeks, and then only talked with a lawyer is... Oh fuck it... you can't understand shit except maybe your mamma telling you that she wishes she aborted you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Zimmerman was fatter. Martin was in much better condition than GZ.

You obviously haven't seen the relatively recent pictures of what Zimmerman looks like nowadays, nor did you even hear your own description of him.

George Zimmerman is not a fat and out of shape man. He's pretty fit.

He was not about to black out at the time he was yelling for help, but at the time he shot.

Again, it would seem you are BOTH, stupid and a liar.

He was yelling at the time he shot. Of course, the fact that he was able to shoot contradicts with the very notion that he was on the verge of blacking out. You're a moron.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Actually, it does matter. Florida statute explicitly preempts a right to use deadly force when the person using such force first brandished his weapon before hand. If Zimmerman flashed his pistol, hoping to scare Martin, and if that lead to Martin "throwing the first punch," the law places guilt upon Zimmerman, and grants the right of self defense upon Martin.

Yeah - Attacking a man pointing a gun at you is the first thing every 17 year old does. Even the girlfriend did not hear the word GUN!

Where did I say that it even happened? I said that Ravi's suggestion, that flashing the gun was irrelevant, was actually incorrect.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it very amusing that there are all these people blithering along about "Zimmerman might have flashed his gun at Martin", and trying so hard to sound intelligent and judicious about 'the evidence", and yet they appear to have no idea that Zimmerman doesn't NEED any evidence to "prove that he didn't flash the gun", because ZIMMERMAN doesn't have to prove jack shit in our legal system. It's the PROSECUTION who has to prove he DID flash the gun, or he DID do anything else to negate self-defense. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. All his lawyer has to do is show reasonable doubt - and there sure seems to be shitloads of THAT.

The idea that George Zimmerman is somehow obligated to disprove every dipshit fantasy scenario your diseased imaginations come up with is laughable.